Gun Laws and Drug Laws

navycrna said:

I understand that many of you feel that people feel that drugs can be taken responsibly and that they only hurt themselves. But this isn't entirely true. From my perspective in the medical field. We have people all the time whose choice of doing drugs greatly affects others. From the crackhead mother who comes in 9 months pregnant, has had no prenatal care and took a couple hits that morning before coming in and delivering her baby. Who now not only has an addicted baby but also needs many more resources that ultimately you and I will pay for. Too the HIV or Hep C infected skin poppers who come in because they have a big infected abcess due to injecting with dirty needles, putting the health care providers who must treat them at greater risk.

Click to expand...

I don't think that a lot of these drugs, especially the "hard core" drugs like herion, crack, crank, pcp, etc, can be taken responsibly. I'm just saying the legality of it all only stops a very few people. I don't know anyone who says, wow i want to be a junkie, if only it was legal. Damn these laws!

The people who are going to become Junkies are going to do it whether or not it's legal. If it is legal, you can cut down the affects of dirty kits and the fear of seeking medical attention. Subsidize birth control implants for them and you get rid of the crack baby problem.

The drugs has a much different and bigger sociological impact than owning guns. I do agree that marijuana has been demonised by the government and that it could be regulated if the government would commit to it, but the problem is then where do you stop in the legalization of drugs.

Click to expand...

You don't. The greatest threat from illegal drugs is the underground economy that it spawns and the violence that goes with it. The self perpetuating downward cycle of the inner city is fed by it. Get rid of the profit motive you get rid of a lot of the gangs.

Drmsparks said:

You don't. The greatest threat from illegal drugs is the underground economy that it spawns and the violence that goes with it. The self perpetuating downward cycle of the inner city is fed by it. Get rid of the profit motive you get rid of a lot of the gangs.

Click to expand...

Get rid of gangs and you can reduce the amount of police needed to arrest them. I believe in many "conspiracy theories", and the most probable cause of the drug problem is the importation of drugs by the CIA. Of course this is further substantiated by the invasion of Afghanastan that helped get the poppy fields flowing again. The government and government run LEO departments all benefit from the giant cycle that you mention.

AKbythebay said:

Remember, there's no constitutional right to take drugs. There IS a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

So to me the issues are not related.

That having been said, I do agree with a lot of the arguments against the criminalization of victimless crimes (prostitusion, drugs, etc)

Click to expand...

That is wrong and you'd be surprised. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson_v._California

Addicts are "sick" and have the right to do what ever they want. It is unconstitutional to ban drug use for anyone.

ahhahaaah, but its completely fine to ban guns (washington, dc) or heavily restrict their use.

So to answer this form. Gun Laws are much worse than drug laws, but you can't compare the two. There are also huge statistical differences. Legal gun owners don't commit crimes, drug "addicts" commit many more crimes than average. Guns built America, drugs have been destroying societies and cities since their discovery.

This form is about the general principle that gun owner are hypocrites for supporting harsh drugs laws (government control) but strongly opposing government control when it comes to guns. The fundamental reason for that is that drugs are destroy and guns preserve. So it is fine for the government to step in and protect us when we are faced with an enemy a single civilian can face. The government protecting us from drugs is like the government sending the navy to destroy an incoming fleet of foreign hostile ships.

Devonian said:

I have recently started reading various shooting forums and have noticed the hard line stance many shooters take on drug offenders. I have never understood why a person who's main political concern is the right to posses an object (firearm) would approve the governments right to imprison individuals who choose to ingest or posses drugs (objects). In my opinion if you support drug prohibition you are supporting the governments ability to decided what you can and cannot own and do with your body and this will and has spilled over into gun legislation and other aspects of our lives.

This article discuses these ideas in greater detail.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0502e.asp

Click to expand...

How true. And while we're at it, lets get rid of those silly laws that don't allow us to drink and drive. As long as I don't hurt someone, what right does anyone have to tell me not to drink and drive.

And what about these stupid ass speed limits??? Me and my BMW are perfectly safe tooling along at 126 mph.

And heck, if I want to screw the neighbors dog, that ought to be OK too. I'm definitley not hurting anyone there.


See where this is heading???? Now you know why drugs are illegal, and should stay that way. You want to use, fine by me. But you will have to pay the piper sooner or later ( or, as it has been so famously said: "your chickens will come home to roost").

And I don't want to here about "responsible" pot heads and ex-users. (Can you spell Barbara Steisand.) Been there, done that. A "responsible" ex user, who is in rehab, just ripped off my warehouse for at least $2000. We have now to take a whole day off work next week to figure just what this scum bag took. That's what you get for trying to help these people.

And heck, if I want to screw the neighbors dog, that ought to be OK too. I'm definitley not hurting anyone there.

Click to expand...

Well, I never thought about that but I guess I would support what ever you are into. As long as the dog is fine with it that is. Good luck to the both of you.

marknakasone said:

The government protecting us from drugs is like the government sending the navy to destroy an incoming fleet of foreign hostile ships.

Click to expand...

Well then sit back and enjoy the show when the government decides to save you from your guns.

xd40c said:

How true. And while we're at it, lets get rid of those silly laws that don't allow us to drink and drive. As long as I don't hurt someone, what right does anyone have to tell me not to drink and drive..

Click to expand...

You're right, you do have a right to drink and drive but when your drinking and driving endanger or hurt some one else then you should be prepared to face the full consequences of the law. No plea deals, No probation, No PBJ and "I promise not to do it again". You're caught DUI(Alcohol or Drugs) then no license. You hurt or kill somebody then expect some long time in the Jessup "Butt Hut". End of game and no reset until you pay your full debt to society.

And what about these stupid ass speed limits??? Me and my BMW are perfectly safe tooling along at 126 mph.

Click to expand...

Again, you're right if you and your BMW don't endanger anybody else on the road. If you're in the middle of Nevada, Montanna or Wyoming then put the the petal to the metal and open that Bimmer up. You're in the middle of MD on I-95 and you fail to consider your actions and deny myself and others the free and safe access to the road we all paid for then you need to loose your right to share the road with the rest of us. Your right to speed can not trump my or the majority's right of safe passage.

And heck, if I want to screw the neighbors dog, that ought to be OK too. I'm definitley not hurting anyone there.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Wrong. My dog is my property. You can't screw my dog without my permission but if you disregard my rights then you can expect retribution from me. Now in our lawful, polite society you expect retribution in the form of criminal or civil penalities. But what about when there is no formal or recognized justice like back in the "old west". Then under the laws of nature, if you do not respect my property rights then I can use all means necessary to protect my property. If you screw my dog then you can expect that I will kill you since "NOBODY hurts my dog or my horse"(to paraphrase a great cowboy line).

See where this is heading???? Now you know why drugs are illegal, and should stay that way. You want to use, fine by me. But you will have to pay the piper sooner or later ( or, as it has been so famously said: "your chickens will come home to roost").

And I don't want to here about "responsible" pot heads and ex-users. (Can you spell Barbara Steisand.) Been there, done that. A "responsible" ex user, who is in rehab, just ripped off my warehouse for at least $2000. We have now to take a whole day off work next week to figure just what this scum bag took. That's what you get for trying to help these people

Click to expand...

The "chickens" should be that that ex-druggie should not be placed in a position of trust. Nobody has a right for a "second chance". You don't deserve anything except no further infringement of your right to "LLPoH" after making a mistake and paying the consequence for that mistake. Our basic morales, influenced by religon, instill us to give people second chances but that is not required by any law. You, your boss and company screwed up and trusted that druggie with a second chance. BTW, the are no "ex" druggies or alcoholics, just ones that have stopped using and abusing the substance of their choice.

As for Barbara Streisand? Hard to explain her continued popularity among the yentas and the libs but God does have sense of humor or he wouldn't have created the duckbill platypus too.

redduck21502 said:

Get rid of gangs and you can reduce the amount of police needed to arrest them. I believe in many "conspiracy theories", and the most probable cause of the drug problem is the importation of drugs by the CIA. Of course this is further substantiated by the invasion of Afghanastan that helped get the poppy fields flowing again. The government and government run LEO departments all benefit from the giant cycle that you mention.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. The War on Drugs is a multi-billion dollar industry. This industry has given the state more power over all our lives. All the search and seizure laws that have enhanced the wealth of the state. No knock warrants on flimsy evidence of a convicted drug dealer or user who is now a snitch. On this person's word the cops get warrants to bang innocent people doors like that 92 old black woman who was killed.

The feds refuse to seal the southern border or enhance security where know drug lords and gangs operate and ship in drugs. Mexican army has been caught numerous times coming into the US to help protect drugs. If Iraq or Iran had invaded our terrority we would be at war.

Who is laundering these billions of dollars of profits and where that money is going? The feds can't claim they don't know because the banks readily give the feds information on large transactions.

Drug laws don't bother me. I don't use them. Gun laws bother me, I do use them.
Every time one of the gangbangers, druggies, or just general low lifes uses a gun in a crime, Bloomberg, Sheila Dixon, O'Malley and his little dog Sheridan and lots of other people have more reason to chip away at our rights. ALL of our rights.
What you do in your home, with your spouse, roomate or neighbors dog is not anyones business. Just keep in mind that if you get caught the Balto Sun headlines are going to read " GUN OWNER CAUGHT HAVING SEX WITH NEIGHBORS YORKIE "

Huckleberry; said:

As for Barbara Streisand? Hard to explain her continued popularity among the yentas and the libs but God does have sense of humor or he wouldn't have created the duckbill platypus too.

Click to expand...

I think you missed the point of my post. I was demonstrating absurdity by being absurd.. I won't try to explain it all now...just think about it.

Barbara Streisand = B S = Bull Sh*t ie "In my opinion most drug abusers amount to little less than a bucket of Barbara Streisand." Lord nows, I can't talk about recreational use.

Warning-strong language but funny

xd40c said:

How true. And while we're at it, lets get rid of those silly laws that don't allow us to drink and drive. As long as I don't hurt someone, what right does anyone have to tell me not to drink and drive.

And what about these stupid ass speed limits??? Me and my BMW are perfectly safe tooling along at 126 mph.

And heck, if I want to screw the neighbors dog, that ought to be OK too. I'm definitley not hurting anyone there.


See where this is heading???? Now you know why drugs are illegal, and should stay that way. You want to use, fine by me. But you will have to pay the piper sooner or later ( or, as it has been so famously said: "your chickens will come home to roost").

And I don't want to here about "responsible" pot heads and ex-users. (Can you spell Barbara Steisand.) Been there, done that. A "responsible" ex user, who is in rehab, just ripped off my warehouse for at least $2000. We have now to take a whole day off work next week to figure just what this scum bag took. That's what you get for trying to help these people.

Click to expand...

you dont want speedlimits? move to the dominican republic, cheaper than the U.S. and no speedlimits... although roads suck so break an axle!

edit: you can drink and drive too!